Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

Balanchine's Ballets -- Has Performance Quality Dropped?


Guest nycdog

Recommended Posts

Guest nycdog
But I do notice that back in 1993, Zhanna Ayupova, Isabel Guerin, and Igor Zelensky could dance in the company and look relatively at ease. Today, I think they'd look like a fish out of water.

Why did you mention these 3 dancers in particular? Did you mean to say that their elbows were softer, their port-te-bras less exaggerated and their hips more on balance compared to the folks around now? :blink:

I posted my message before I had read what carbro added, 'By the time of the gala, Zelensky had been a member of NYCB for at least a year, after having made a guest appearance. At the time, as a member of the theater audience, I thought some of the guests (Ayupova being a prime example) stood out for their un-Balanchinian style. Guerin, of course, who did fit neatly among the home company, had had several guest engagements with NYCB.'

Link to comment

I posted about those three dancers because they danced at a gala that I now have on video. Guerin, Ayupova, and Zelensky were all obviously of a different training school than the NYCB, but they didnt look TOTALLY out of place. Today, I think they would. I mean, can anyone honestly picture someone like Zhanna Ayupova dancing alongisde Wendy Whelan and Maria Kowrowski in Apollo?

Link to comment
I posted about those three dancers because they danced at a gala that I now have on video. Guerin, Ayupova, and Zelensky were all obviously of a different training school than the NYCB, but they didnt look TOTALLY out of place. Today, I think they would. I mean, can anyone honestly picture someone like Zhanna Ayupova dancing alongisde Wendy Whelan and Maria Kowrowski in Apollo?

The casting for that gala Apollo paired Guerin and Ayupova with Patricia Barker of Pacific Northwest Ballet. If Guerin and Ayupova didn't look out of place in Apollo, perhaps it was because they were cast together and not with any women from NYCB in that performance.

I, personally, think they did look out of place, while Barker, who was trained by Francia Russell, a former NYCB soloist who was entrusted by Balanchine to stage his ballets worldwide since she was in her 20's, was the performer who looked like she belonged on Balanchine's stage.

Link to comment
Guest nycdog

Farrell's Fan said:

"One dancer who did not look out of place at that gala was the great Darcey Bussell. Her Agon pas de deux lingers in my memory. Unfortunately I've forgoten who her partner was. Anybody remember?"

Here's the full listing:

"Performance recorded at New York State Theater, New York, on June 27, 1993. Telecast by Thirteen/WNET on the Great Performances: Dance in America series

Agon: selections / music, Igor Stravinsky; danced by Peter Boal, Zippora Karz, and Kathleen Tracey (first pas de trois); Albert Evans, Arch Higgins, and Wendy Whelan (second pas de trois); Darcey Bussell (Royal Ballet) and Lindsay Fischer (pas de deux)."

Farrell Fan, this evening I watched Farrell and Martins in Diamonds, the film is from 1977? I think Diamonds is by far the least interesting of the 3 ballets in Jewels and I didn't care for this performance by Farrell. I just wonder if this is a performance you think is well done?

How on earth has NYCB been casting Whelan in Diamonds recently? :wacko: But I'm sure it's something that Maria K. does better today than Farrell in this film.

Link to comment

nycdog, you stated that you didn't care for the performance by farrell, and later that maria kowroski does it 'better' than farrell; the two statements aren't equal. one is subjective and one is not. can you qualify? in my feeling there isn't any better or worse in this situation, just personal preference.

Link to comment

Thanks, rg and nycdog.

NYC dog, you're correct that the "Diamonds" excerpt is from 1977. It was recorded at Opryland Productions in Nashville and "reconceived" for television (Dance in America, on PBS) by George Balanchine. I think it's quite good, although it loses a lot by not being seen in context, and I don't like the "set."

I think its impossible to understand Suzanne Farrell's dancing from tapes or films. Her performances were always spontaneous, with no two ever completely alike. I find it inconclusive to compare dancers on the basis of tapes or films. In the case of Farrell, it is impossible. That said, certain of her recorded performances are more appealing than others. The best is the snippet from Balanchine's Don Q in the "Elusive Muse" film. Other good ones are in "Davidsbundlertanze," "Chaconne," and "Tzigane." and the film of "Midsummer Night's Dream."

Link to comment
Thanks, rg and nycdog.

NYC dog, you're correct that the "Diamonds" excerpt is from 1977. It was recorded at Opryland Productions in Nashville and "reconceived" for television (Dance in America, on PBS) by George Balanchine. I think it's quite good, although it loses a lot by not being seen in context, and I don't like the "set."

I think its impossible to understand Suzanne Farrell's dancing from tapes or films. Her performances were always spontaneous, with no two ever completely alike. I find it inconclusive to compare dancers on the basis of tapes or films. In the case of Farrell, it is impossible. That said, certain of her recorded performances are more appealing than others. The best is the snippet from Balanchine's Don Q in the "Elusive Muse" film. Other good ones are in "Davidsbundlertanze," "Chaconne," and "Tzigane." and the film of "Midsummer Night's Dream."

i saw a section of apollo - with suzanne and jacques d'amboise - in black and white, without sound, on a small stage or in a studio, that was amazingly fine

i think it was done in canada

suzanne was very young at that point, very interesting and very gorgeous

and so was jacques

does anyone else recall it?

Link to comment
Guest nycdog

Hey Dale, I hope that NYCB will offer more video on their website in the future because there is hardly any at the moment. They should at least have little clips of each dancer like they do at the Dutch National Ballet site. There is no public place on the entire internet to view any sort of NYCB performance.

Mme. Hermine

"nycdog, you stated that you didn't care for the performance by farrell, and later that maria kowroski does it 'better' than farrell; the two statements aren't equal. one is subjective and one is not. can you qualify? in my feeling there isn't any better or worse in this situation, just personal preference"

I adore Suzanne Farrell that's why I made such a mild comment! :wacko: I think I prefer MK because she is younger than Farrell was in this Diamonds film which seems to be from 1977 (not sure about that).

<Oh, more posts occurred while I was composing this>

Farrell Fan I think Suzanne comes across as very great in some films, you didn't mention Scotch Symphony where she was a whirling dervish! I would also ask you this, I see quite a difference between young and old Farrell, I prefer her so far before the marriage. Does anyone make this distinction? charlieloki just mentioned it.

Link to comment

I think Farrell's career can be divided into the BB and AB eras -- Before and After Bejart. After all, she was with his Ballet of the 20th Century for four years, 1970-74 and during that time she danced in some twenty ballets, creating roles in: The Triumph of Petrarch; Nijinsky: Clown of God; Erotica; Ah, Vous Dirai-Je, Maman; Bach Sonata; Le Marteau sans Maitre; Golestan; and Le Fleurs du Mal -- a far cry from the NYCB repertory. Whatever one may think of Bejart, Farrell's sojourn with him had the effect of greatly deepening her art. No less an authority than Jacques d'Amboise said in "Elusive Muse." "When she came back she was better!" I agree.

Link to comment

I have wondered how Farrell would have developed without her Bejart period. I would describe her BB period as bland, akin to sliced white bread--but the AB--what a revelation---she had time to become a woman and mature on her own terms.

Link to comment
I Whatever one may think of Bejart, Farrell's sojourn with him had the effect of greatly deepening her art. No less an authority than Jacques d'Amboise said in "Elusive Muse." "When she came back she was better!" I agree.

Perhaps it was also a matter of Farrell finally feeling comfortable in her own skin.

Link to comment
Guest nycdog

In Elusive Muse, Farrell made an interesting comment on her return to NYCB, "Before leaving the company not many people took Mr B's class."

She said everyone was there on the first day of her return to see how she and B would interact with one another... but why did they not take his class?

It seems shocking NOW that the dancers wanted to avoid his instruction, THEN.

Link to comment

Farrell and others have explained that Balanchine's classes were hard. He didn't give the type of class that warmed you up. He expected the dancers to be warmed up before he started. He explored and experimented. He would often stay on one step until it was done the way he liked, or done different ways with extreme tempos and counterpoint. From reading several accounts of these classes, I surmise that he was less interested in the dancers looking perfect than in them extending themselves, learning to do the "impossible." There seemed to be a core group that never missed his class and these now are some of the top stagers of his work.

However, some great dancers of his, such as Edward Villella, did not take his class due to physical reasons. Villella had to stop dancing during his time in the Merchant Marines. When he came back, he found his body just couldn't take Mr. B's class and he went a different route.

Link to comment
It seems shocking NOW that the dancers wanted to avoid his instruction, THEN.

To the people who took his class, especially the Monday class he taught for a while on the "day off," often without piano accompanist, it was shocking THEN that the other dancers didn't take his class.

Different dancers had their reasons, but almost all publicly acknowledged ones seem to boil down to:

a. He didn't give a proper warm-up, but went straight into strenuous tendus immediately after plie at the barre. Balanchine was often quoted as saying that dancers expected an easy barre, usually close to a quote that said that dancers were like racehorses that needed to be prodded out of their laziness.

b. They weren't balanced -- he might give all hops on pointe while he was choreographing a ballet with hops on pointe, and then focus on something completely different in the next phase. In Balanchine's Ballerinas, Melissa Hayden said that when Farrell had bad knees, Balanchine stopped giving jumps in class, and she asked how a dancer could remain in shape to dance his ballets without jumps in class.

c. They were too physically strenous for dancers who were overloaded with rehearsal and performance and/or for dancers in later parts of their careers. Villella talks about this in Prodigal Son.

Class was readily acknowledged as Balanchine's laboratory. While this met his purpose, and he was the one in charge, while few dispute that as a rule, class was important for a dancer's career, it isn't universally acknowledged to this day that his approach to class was the best for the dancers' bodies or physical development. Melissa Hayden said in the PBS Balanchine biography, a dancer learns how to dance Balanchine by dancing his ballets.

[Oops -- posting simultaneously with Dale]

Link to comment

I've jujst had the chance to read Merrill Ashley's Dancing for Balanchine. She returns frequently to the question of Balanchine's classes (pros and cons), and ends the book with the situation that existed just after his death. Merrill makes an interesting point, which seems apropos to this topic:

"The debate on the old versus the new seems to have obscured the obvious fact that everyone stands to gain when the Company dances well. Without good dancing, there will be no preservation of Balanchine's ballets as we have grown accustomed to seeing them, and choreographers will be handicapped in their future creative efforts." (N.B.: dancing "well," to Ashley, seems to relate to Balanchine's unique requirements, which are described and illustrated vividly throughout the book.)

"If the great example of Balanchine's ceaseless efforts to instruct and inspire is not followed, we may awaken one day only to find that although we have resolved satisfactorily the issue of the proper balance of ballets [b's versus new choreography] we will no longer have the dancers we need to dance those ballets. Then we may find that Balanchine's masterpieces look dull and stale ..."

The Company will then have a choice: either to respond with quick-fix efforts to make the ballets look interesting (and the result will be either visible strain, as dancers who are out of their depth try to do the steps well, or 'acting' to cover up a lack of skill), or to add more and more new ballets to the reportory ... The ultimate irony would be if the Company, in the name of some spurious creativity, produced new ballet after ballet, all the while turing its back on its glorious past, the past that still lives today [1984] in a few of its dancers."

It seems that the criiticisms of Croce, Acocella, and othes are pre-figured in this 20-year old warning, which sounds eerily like a prospectus for much of the Diamond Project. Those who believe that there is a problem with NYCB's current policy re coaching will find some support here, too.

On the other hand, it's clear from the large number of fervent fans who post on this site, that NYCB still has the power to demand the same high level of adoration that it always had. Much of this is thanks to the enthusiasm generated by individual dancers. The question is: what exactly is being adored? and is it the same thing that was being adored a generation ago?

Link to comment
Guest nycdog

Bart quoted Merrill Ashley as having written:

"The ultimate irony would be if the Company, in the name of some spurious creativity, produced new ballet after ballet, all the while turing its back on its glorious past, the past that still lives today [1984] in a few of its dancers."

I wonder about this issue of 'spurious creativity.' Is this what they are doing with the Spring Gala Premiers on 4 May?

We'll have to go and see!

Gaisma (New Martins, World Premiere)

New Evans Ballet (World Premiere)

Double Aria (New Millepied, NYCB Premiere)

Distant Cries (New Liang, NYCB Premiere)

An American in Paris (New Wheeldon, World Premiere)

Link to comment
Guest nycdog

Farrell Fan wrote on 7 Mar 2003, 05:05 PM:

"In his wrapup of the winter season, Michael cited as a cause for worry his impression that "the new audience on the weekend seems to prefer Tanner/Martins/Wheeldon to Balanchine." I've noticed this too, not just on weekends, and Bobbi has expressed similar concern. On one Friday evening last month, Lynn Taylor-Corbett's "Chiaroscuro" was more enthusiastically received than either Concerto Barocco or Chaconne"

Apparently it doesn't matter whether the new ballets are on the level of B, as far as making the audience happy.

Link to comment

I sometimes wonder what percentage of the audience on a given night knows that NYCB is "Balanchine's company" or knows or cares whether his ballets are or are not being performed "up to past standards"?

People I have taken or "sent" to the ballet over the last 7 years have singled out non-Balanchine ballets for special praise: Robbins OPUS 19/THE DREAMER and THE CAGE, Wheeldon's CAROUSEL, Peter Martins STABAT MATER and HALLELUJAH JUNCTION have been specially enjoyed. Balanchine works are always thought highly of but aren't considered any more significant than other items on the programme.

Just this past Friday a friend who is swooping into town for a few days called to ask if I could get him tickets to see CHICHESTER PSALMS because he read that NYCB was doing it and he loves that Bernstein score. Another once asked me to get him tickets to FIREBIRD to see the Chagall sets. I once tried to discourage friends from going on a night when, as I told them, "there's no Balanchine on the programme" and they were like: "So???"

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...